The Trouble with Studying Government-Provided Marijuana

Researchers are finally studying the medicinal effects of marijuana after many years of marijuana advocates begging and pleading for science to investigate what they already knew – that the plant has the power to ease seizures, help people sleep, and much more. But scientists aren’t studying the stuff you can buy on the street or in dispensaries, so can we trust their conclusions?

All it takes is a quick glance at the photo above to realize that scientists are using…well, crap…in their studies. And it’s not their fault; this is the schwag the government provides. It’s full of leaves and stems, it’s lighter in color, and it’s stringy. It’s almost like the government is afraid to give ’em the real stuff. [1]

Scientists are starting to get a little angry about the quality of cannabis they’re being forced to use. You can’t study medical-quality marijuana if you’re being provided with what looks like a bag of oregano.

Sue Sisley is a researcher who has just embarked on a first-of-its-kind clinical trial of government medical marijuana for military veterans suffering with PTSD. The study has its difficulties. Sisley says she once got a batch of federal marijuana that resembled green talcum powder.

“It didn’t resemble cannabis. It didn’t smell like cannabis.” [2]

Read: 21 Lawmakers Push Veterans Affairs to Allow Medical Marijuana

She’s not the only one who thinks government weed is a joke. Jake Browne, a cannabis critic for the Denver Post’s Cannabist marijuana news site, says:

“That is, flat out, not a usable form of cannabis.” [1]

Browne, who has reviewed dozens of strains professionally, adds:

“In two decades of smoking weed, I’ve never seen anything that looks like that. People typically smoke the flower of the plant, but here you can clearly see stems and leaves in there as well, parts that should be discarded. Inhaling that would be like eating an apple, including the seeds inside it and the branch it grew on.” [1]

Source: PBS News Hour

It’s unlikely also that Sisley just got a bad batch.

The University of Mississippi is the only facility permitted to grow federal marijuana. The program is overseen by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), so it all comes from one place. Last summer, the DEA formally took steps to allow other entities to supply marijuana for research purposes, but so far none have been approved.

The potency of marijuana grown at the university tops out at 13% THC, but Sisley’s testing revealed that one of NIDA’s strains that was allegedly 13% THC was actually only 8%. The typical commercial weed available in Colorado is about 19% THC. Some higher-end strains can reach 30% or more.

How do you study whiskey when all you have is Mike’s Hard Lemonade? Crappy weed is OK if you’re using it to study how marijuana affects the body in a lab setting, but you can’t use NIDA weed to find out how the plant affects people in the real world. It doesn’t work in highly controlled medical experiments either. So says Rick Doblin, founding director of the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS), a group that’s been working with Sisley on the PTSD trial.

Potency is only one of the problems being encountered by researchers. Remember the batch of government weed Sisley got that resembled green talcum powder? Well, some of the samples tested positive for mold. [2]

The government allows only one source of marijuana for clinical research in the United States; and “they weren’t able to produce what we were asking for,” Sisley says.

Sisley and her colleagues were finally able to enroll their first trial subjects, but it took 4 months and 3 rounds of testing after the initial delivery of bad weed. Mold can be dangerous, after all, particularly in people with mold allergies and in people with compromised immune systems. In fact, immunocompromised people were excluded from Sisley’s study.

Doblin says that this recent episode:

“…shows that NIDA is completely inadequate as a source of marijuana for drug development research.” [2]

He adds:

“They’re in no way capable of assuming the rights and responsibilities for handling a drug that we’re hoping to be approved by the FDA as prescription medicine.”

Sisley agrees, and says:

“…if you’re trying to do a study where you imitate what patients do in the real world, you can’t.”

Sources:

[1] The Washington Post

[2] PBS News Hour

---

---

About Julie Fidler:
	Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.

Fracking Giant Sues Citizen for Speaking out Against Fracking

Fracking giant Cabot Oil & Gas Corp. is suing Dimock, Pennsylvania resident Ray Kemble and his attorneys for $5 million after Kemble accused the gas driller of polluting residential wells in Pennsylvania. Cabot alleges that Kemble and his lawyers extorted the company through a “frivolous” lawsuit. [1]

In 2013, an EPA official wrote in an internal report that fracking conducted by Cabot Oil & Gas Corp. caused methane to leak into domestic water wells in Dimock, completely contradicting Cabot’s assessment, which said the methane gas was naturally occurring. [2]

State regulators initially got involved in 2010 and said Cabot’s drilling contaminated local wells, though a subsequent EPA investigation in 2012 found the water posed no health risks to Dimock residents.

Though the 2013 report didn’t exactly contract the EPA’s finding that the water was safe to use, it did show that at least one official determined that Cabot’s work damaged water wells.

Read: Study: People Living Near Fracking Sites Suffer Severe Health Problems

Now, Cabot is suing Kemble, claiming that his efforts to garner media attention to his polluted well “harmed” the company. The energy company alleges in the suit that Kemble’s actions breached a 2012 settlement that was part of an ongoing federal class action lawsuit over Dimock’s water quality.

Kemble says that even now his water “burns the back of your throat, makes you gag, makes you want to puke.” According to the outspoken Pennsylvanian, who, along with other community members, was featured in the 2010 documentary “Gasland,” said that things only got worse after Cabot fracked 3 wells near his house. [3]

In August 2017, scientists from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), a public health agency, again tested the water at Kemble’s home and about 2 dozen other houses.

A report released by the ATSDR in 2016 found contamination in some of Dimock’s well-water, but the tests did not look at what was casing the contamination. [4]

Read: Fracking Contaminates Groundwater, Study Proves

George Stark, Cabot’s director of external affairs, said of the lawsuit:

“Cabot will protect its rights and pursue justice against those who irresponsibly and maliciously abuse the legal system.” [1]

Source: Sierra Club BC

In April 2017, Kemble and his lawyers filed a federal lawsuit accusing Cabot of continuing to pollute Kemble’s water supply. However, the suit was withdrawn 2 months later. [3]

According to Cabot, the claims Kemble made in the lawsuit were the subject of a 2012 settlement between the driller and dozens of Dimock residents – including Kemble – and were barred by the statute of limitations. Cabot claims in the lawsuit that Kemble had breached the 2012 settlement by publicly discussing the company and the alleged damage it did to his water supply.

In 2016, some of Kemble’s neighbors, who had refused to sign a settlement agreement with Cabot, were awarded $4.2 million by a jury. However, in March 2017, that ruling was overturned. [4]

The judge overseeing the case ordered a new trial.

Two weeks later, Kemble filed his lawsuit against Cabot.

Sources:

[1] MintPress News

[2] The Washington Post

[3] Press Connects

[4] Hot Air

Sierra Club BC

---

---

About Julie Fidler:
	Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.

National Park Bottled Water “Ban” Reversed By Trump Administration

The news is awash with fire and brimstone warnings about plastic pollution, both on land and at sea. To help battle back against the trillions of pieces of plastic littering the planet, the National Park Service put a policy in place in 2011 encouraging national parks to end the sale of bottled water. It wasn’t an outright ban, but 23 out of 417 national parks went on to restrict bottled water sales. In mid-August 2017, the Trump Administration reversed the Obama-era policy.

The policy was rolled back “in close consultation with Department of Interior leadership,” the International Bottled Water Association (IBWA) said in a statement. [2]

Acting National Park Service Director Michael T. Reynolds said in a statement:

“While we will continue to encourage the use of free water bottle filling stations as appropriate, ultimately it should be up to our visitors to decide how best to keep themselves and their families hydrated during a visit to a national park.” [1]

The ban surely reduced some of the plastic litter plaguing national parks, but aspects of the policy made little sense. The 23 national parks that stopped selling bottled water continued to sell bottles of sweetened drinks, so the policy basically zeroed in on 1 source of pollution while essentially ignoring other sources, and made it impossible for visitors to those particular parks to purchase a healthy beverage option.

Jill Culora, vice president of IBWA, said:

“The rescinded policy was seriously flawed.”

The parks that banned the sale of bottled water tried to make up for it by spending millions installing water stations.

The policy was established to reduce waste, Culora said, but “people coming to the parks that banned the sale of bottled water were still allowed to buy other less healthy beverages – including carbonated soft drinks, sports drinks, teas, milk, beer, and wine – that are packaged in much heavier plastic, glass, cans, and cardboard containers.”

Visitors were also allowed to carry food wrapped in plastic into the parks. [2]

Read: This is Why We Need to Stop Using Plastic (Infographic)

The bottled water policy encouraged visitors to use water fountains and bring refillable bottles to quench their thirst. The park service says it is discontinuing the policy to give visitors more hydration options.

In a statement, the National Park Service said:

“The change in policy comes after a review of the policy’s aims and impact in close consultation with Department of the Interior leadership.” [1]

Still, every little bit of conservation helps. In a statement, the Sierra Club’s public lands policy director, Athan Manuel, said:

“actions that roll back protections on our National Parks and public lands only move our country backward — putting the importance of local economies, wildlife and communities on the back burner.”

The Sierra Club noted that the bottled water ban in national parks was intended to increase sustainability and cut carbon emissions.

Read: Plastic Bottles Could Lead to Environmental Crisis, Scientists Warn

And the nonprofit group Corporate Accountability International (CAI) pointed out that the Trump Administration recently appointed a deputy secretary at the Department of the Interior who previously was employed by a law firm that has represented one of the nation’s largest bottled water companies.

David Bernhardt was confirmed by the Senate as deputy interior secretary only weeks ago. He is a former lobbyist with the law firm Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, which has represented Nestlé Waters, the distributor of the Deer Park brand. [2]

Nestlé is notorious for its former chairman and CEO, Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, who in 2013 said that drinking water is a not a human right and should be privatized.

Jesse Bragg, spokesperson for CAI, said in a statement:

“The [bottled-water] industry has lobbied Congress to block this policy for years.” [1]

Bragg added that this is an “example of the industry pulling the strings behind the scenes to protect is profits.”

Sources:

[1] NPR

[2] The Washington Post

---

---

About Julie Fidler:
	Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.

Jury Slams Johnson & Johnson with $417M Verdict over Talc-Cancer Link

A jury awarded a California woman $417 million on August 21, 2017 after she developed ovarian cancer as a result of using Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder for decades as part of her regular feminine hygiene routine. The award includes $70 million in compensatory damages and $347 million in punitive damages.

Los Angeles resident Eva Echeverria, 63, said she had used Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder since she was 11. She stopped using the product in 2016, after reading about another woman who had also developed ovarian cancer as a result of using the powder.

Hundreds of other cases are currently awaiting trial in California. Thousands of similar cases are progressing through state and federal courts, even as we speak. Juries elsewhere have returned 4 other verdicts against Johnson & Johnson.

Read: Johnson & Johnson Loses Another Talcum Powder-Cancer Lawsuit

The plaintiffs allege Johnson & Johnson ignored studies linking it’s Johnson’s Baby Powder and Shower to Shower products to cancer. [2]

Echeverria was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2007. She had a softball-sized tumor removed from one of her ovaries, but she is now at the end of her life and was too sick to attend the trial.

Echeverria’s attorney, Mark Robinson, said:

“Mrs. Echeverria is dying from this ovarian cancer and she said to me all she wanted to do was to help the other women throughout the whole country who have ovarian cancer for using Johnson & Johnson for 20 and 30 years.

She really didn’t want sympathy. She just wanted to get a message out to help these other women.” [3]

Robinson added:

“Johnson & Johnson had many warning bells over a 30 year period but failed to warn the women who were buying its product.”

In her testimony, Echeverria said that if Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder had come with a warning label about the potential for cancer, she would have stopped using it much sooner. [1]

Due to the fact that talcum powder is legally considered a cosmetic, Johnson & Johnson has no legal obligation to include a warning label. As a cosmetic product, talcum powder does not have to undergo a review by the FDA.

Some other talc-based products on the market do carry labels that mention the potential risk of ovarian cancer after frequent application for feminine hygiene. Many women apply talcum powder to their genital area, or on sanitary napkins, to prevent odor and chaffing.

Research into the link between talcum powder and ovarian cancer has been a mixed bag of results. According to the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the genital use of talc-based body powder is “possibly carcinogenic to humans.”

Jury: Johnson & Johnson Failed To Warn Of Talc Powder-Cancer Risk

The American Cancer Society (ACS) says the U.S. National Toxicology Program  has not fully reviewed talc as a possible carcinogen.

In a statement, Johnson & Johnson said it plans to appeal the verdict.

Carol Goodrich, a representative for Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., said in a statement:

“Ovarian cancer is a devastating diagnosis and we deeply sympathize with the women and families impacted by this disease.

We will appeal today’s verdict because we are guided by the science, which supports the safety of Johnson’s Baby Powder. In April, the National Cancer Institute’s Physician Data Query Editorial Board wrote, ‘The weight of evidence does not support an association between perineal talc exposure and an increased risk of ovarian cancer.’ We are preparing for additional trials in the US and we will continue to defend the safety of Johnson’s Baby Powder.”

Sources:

[1] CNN

[2] Los Angeles Times

[3] The Washington Post

---

---

About Mike Barrett:
	Mike is the co-founder, editor, and researcher behind Natural Society. Studying the work of top natural health activists, and writing special reports for top 10 alternative health websites, Mike has written hundreds of articles and pages on how to obtain optimum wellness through natural health.

Study: Teen Pot Dependency DOWN Despite Looser Marijuana Laws

The legalization of marijuana around the country has many parents concerned that it will only get easier for their kids to get their hands on the vilified plant. But a study from Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis should calm parents’ fears.

Researchers there studied a national database on drug use by over 216,000 preteens and teens ages 12-17, and found that fewer kids are dependent on marijuana, or struggling with school or relationships. All of these problems declined by 24% from 2002 to 2013.

During that time period, the number of kids who said they used marijuana in the previous 12 months dropped by 10%. Minor declines were also observed in the number of behavioral problems, such as fighting, shoplifting, and selling drugs.

Debunking the Myth: Legal Weed Does Not Increase Teen Marijuana Consumption

Behavioral issues and drug problems tend to go hand-in-hand. The “why” can go either way – when kids are no longer dependent on drugs, they have fewer serious problems. But kids who have fewer serious problems, or resolve them, are also less likely to be dependent on drugs.

The team wrote in the study, published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry:

“The reduction in the past-year prevalence of marijuana use disorders among adolescents took place during a period when 10 US states relaxed criminal sanctions against adult marijuana use and 13 states enacted medical marijuana policies. During this period, teenagers also became less likely to perceive marijuana use as risky, and marijuana use became more socially acceptable among young adults.”

Read: Physician Group Supports Federal Decriminalization, Regulation of Marijuana

Lead study author Richard Grucza, PhD, an associate professor of psychiatry atWashington University School of Medicine, said:

“We were surprised to see substantial declines in marijuana use and abuse. We don’t know how legalization is affecting young marijuana users, but it could be that many kids with behavioral problems are more likely to get treatment earlier in childhood, making them less likely to turn to pot during adolescence. But whatever is happening with these behavioral issues, it seems to be outweighing any effects of marijuana decriminalization.”

In 2002, about 16% of young people reported using marijuana during the previous year. By 2013, that number had dropped to below 14%. And the percentage of young people with “marijuana-use disorders” declined from about 4% to about 3%.

Grucza said:

“Other research shows that psychiatric disorders earlier in childhood are strong predictors of marijuana use later on. So it’s likely that if these disruptive behaviors are recognized earlier in life, we may be able to deliver therapies that will help prevent marijuana problems — and possibly problems with alcohol and other drugs, too.” [1]

The findings don’t mean that the loosening of marijuana laws are the reason behind the drop in marijuana dependence and behavioral/personal issues. But they do suggest that other factors – including broader behavioral and mental health trends – have a much broader effect on teen marijuana use than laws and attitudes towards pot.

Last year, a study published in Lancet Psychiatry found that legalizing medical marijuana had no effect on teen marijuana use at the state level. Other large surveys of adolescents have found that marijuana use among kids has been flat. And state-level federal survey data shows teen marijuana use has remained about the same, even in states where it has been legalized for adults.

Marijuana offers many health benefits, and there has never been a fatal overdose of cannabis in recorded history, though some studies have suggested that marijuana use may harm the developing teen brain.

Sources:

[1] Pain News Network

[2] The Sydney Morning Herald

---

---

About Julie Fidler:
	Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.

Are These GMO Meatless Burgers Safe to Eat? The FDA Isn’t Sure

The FDA informed the manufacturer of Impossible Burger – a meat-like burger made using only plants – that it had not yet proven that the product’s key genetically modified (GM) ingredient is safe for consumption. The company, Impossible Foods, decided it knew better and launched the product anyway. [1]

The Impossible Burger is made using a GM form of a protein called soy leghemoglobin (SLH) or “heme,” which comes from the root nodules of soybean plants. An SLH gene is added to a yeast strain that is grown in vats using a fermentation process. Impossible Foods then isolates the heme from the yeast and adds it to the Impossible Burger, giving it a meat-like taste and blood-like red color.

Impossible Foods says on its website that it is “on a mission to make the global food system more sustainable.”

The company claims the Impossible Burger:

“…uses about 75% less water, generates about 87% fewer greenhouse gases and requires around 95% less land than conventional ground beef from cows. It’s produced without hormones, antibiotics, cholesterol or artificial flavors.”

The GMO faux-meat burgers are available at 43 restaurants nationwide, including several burger chains.

Documents obtained by ETC Group and Friends of the Earth U.S. through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) show Impossible Foods submitted an application to the FDA seeking GRAS (generally recognized as safe) status for SLH in 2014. The GRAS notification policy allows food manufacturers to decide for itself, independently of the FDA, whether or not a product is safe.

However, the FDA warned the company that SLH would not meet the basic GRAS status. The documents state:

“FDA believes that the arguments presented, individually and collectively do not establish the safety of SLH for consumption, nor do they point to a general recognition of safety.”

Impossible Foods maintains that its SLH/heme is identical to the SLH already in the food supply, but Impossible Foods had no safety testing data to support that claim, said Michael Hansen, a senior scientist at Consumers Union.

Hansen explained:

“You are taking something that has never been in the food supply before and you come to the FDA, say it is GRAS, and you have no safety data, particularly from feeding studies. Their argument has literally come down to saying this is exactly identical to the heme we’ve always been eating, but it’s not true.”

Impossible Foods admitted to the FDA that as much as 1/4 of its heme was composed of 46 “unexpected” additional proteins, however. Not all of these proteins have been identified, and none of them were assessed for safety in the report.

Hansen said:

“It’s only 73% pure, the other 27% is from proteins from the genetically engineered yeast that produces it, and these have an unknown function.”

Impossible Foods decided to say, “Screw the FDA,” and proceeded to start selling the Impossible Burger in 2016.

(Even before the Impossible Burger hit the market, however, there were plenty of unknown ingredients floating around the food system. A 2013 study by the Pew Charitable Trust found that the FDA was oblivious to approximately 1,000 of some 10,000 ingredients used in food, thanks to the FDA’s GRAS system.) [2]

Jim Thomas of ETC Group said:

“The FDA told Impossible Foods that its burger was not going to meet government safety standards, and the company admitted it didn’t know all of its constituents. Yet it sold it anyway to thousands of unwitting consumers. Responsible food companies don’t treat customers this way. Impossible Foods should pull the burgers from the market unless and until safety can be established by the FDA and apologize to those whose safety it may have risked.” [1]

With news of the FDA’s rejection ready to break, Impossible Foods issued a statement August 15, defending the safety of heme, noting that SLH has been declared safe by 2 panels of food safety experts and allergists following “extensive testing.” The company insists these reviews found that heme “has a very low potential for allergenicity.” [3]

Rachel Konrad, a spokeswoman for Impossible Foods, said:

“We respect the role the FDA plays in ensuring the safety of our food supply, and we believe the public wants and deserves transparency and access to any information they need to decide for themselves whether any food they might eat is safe and wholesome.” [2]

Sources:

[1] The Huffington Post

[2] The New York Times

[3] Eater

---

---

About Julie Fidler:
	Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.

The Opioid Crisis Deemed a National Emergency: So What Happens Now?

On August 10, 2017, President Donald Trump declared the opioid crisis a national emergency in a move that many speculated he wouldn’t make. Only 2 days before the announcement, Trump vowed to “win” the fight on painkillers and heroin, but stopped short of declaring an emergency. [1]

On August 8, following a meeting with Trump, Health and Human Services secretary Tom Price said that such a declaration was unnecessary, but said that all options were on the table, including a declaration of emergency. [2]

It is unclear what sparked the reversal.

Speaking at his Bedminster, New Jersey, golf club, Trump said:

“The opioid crisis is an emergency, and I’m saying officially, right now, it is an emergency. It’s a national emergency. We’re going to spend a lot of time, a lot of effort and a lot of money on the opioid crisis.” [1]

The President called the crisis “a serious problem the likes of which we have never had.”

He added:

“You know when I was growing up they had the LSD and they had certain generations of drugs. There’s never been anything like what’s happened to this country over the last four or five years. And I have to say this in all fairness, this is a worldwide problem, not just a United States problem.”

Source: MPR News

Keith Humphreys, an addiction specialist at Stanford University who worked in the federal Office of National Drug Control Policy under Barack Obama, explained that 2 major actions will result from the national emergency declaration. [2]

“First, it lets states and localities that are designated disaster zones to access money in the federal Disaster Relief Fund, just like they could if they had a tornado or hurricane.”

Source: The Huffington Post

According to Humphreys, the declaration will allow states and cities to request disaster zone declarations from the White House. In turn, these localities would be able to use federal funds for drug treatment, the overdose-reversal drug Naloxone, and other tools.

Humphreys said:

“Second, declaring an emergency allows temporary waivers of many rules regarding federal programs. For example, currently Medicaid can’t reimburse drug treatment in large residential facilities (16 or more beds). That could be waived in an emergency.”

Under the Obamacare replacement proposals backed by Trump, Medicaid funds for opioid addiction treatment would have been drastically cut.

An Excuse to Keep Fighting the War on Drugs?

The United States is undoubtedly in the grip of an unparalleled drug epidemic. In 2015, opioid overdoses killed nearly 35,000 people in the U.S., according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). [1]

By contrast, a study published August 7, 2017, found that mortality rates were 24% higher for opioids and 22% higher for heroin than had been previously reported. [2]

However, proponents of a public health-centered approach to the crisis epidemic worry about the potential ramifications of what powers an emergency declaration would grant an administration that favors tough-on-crime law enforcement tactics.

Grant Smith of the Drug Policy Alliance said:

“We need to be cautious about the intentions of this administration. An emergency declaration can be used for good. It can help free up federal resources, help prioritize responses by the federal [government], help give the administration leverage to request legislation from Congress.”

Or, in the worst case scenario:

“…all of those things I just mentioned could be used to further the war on drugs. It could give the administration leverage to push for new sentencing legislation. Or legislation that enhances [drug] penalties or law enforcement response. It could give [Attorney General Jeff] Sessions more leverage to push the agenda that he has been pushing,” Smith warned.

In 2016, as part of the 21st Century Cures Act, Congress approved $1 billion in funding over 2 years for state grants to tackle the opioid epidemic. Nevertheless, recent federal estimates suggest opioid overdoses increased last year, even as opioid prescriptions decreased.

Sources:

[1] NBC News

[2] The Associated Press

MPR News

The Huffington Post

---

---

About Julie Fidler:
	Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.

CPSC Issues Fidget Spinner Safety Guidance for Buyers, Businesses

Fidget spinners are pretty sweet. They were designed to help people with conditions like ADD to better concentrate, though they have turned into a huge trend in toys. However, there have been a number of incidents involving injuries caused by fidget spinners, prompting the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to issue a new fidget spinner safety guidance for both buyers and businesses. [1]

So far, no deaths have been reported, but a number of children have choked on pieces of the toys, including a 10-year-old girl who had to have one of the bearings from a fidget spinner surgically removed.

The commission says choking incidents have been reported in children as old as 14. Moreover, there have been 2 incidences of battery-operated fidget spinners catching on fire, and 1 incident in which a fidget spinner melted. One kid even managed to chip a tooth on a fidget spinner. [1] [2]

Ann Marie Buerkle, acting chief of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, said in a statement:

“As the agency investigates some reported incidents associated with this popular product, fidget spinner users or potential buyers should take some precautions. Keep them from small children; the plastic and metal spinners can break and release small pieces that can be a choking hazard; and older children should not put fidget spinners in their mouths.” [1]

Buerkle added in the statement that fidget spinners should be kept away from children under the age of 3.

On the topic of battery-operated fidget spinners, the agency says that buyers should never leave one of the toys charging unattended, never charge them overnight, and always use the charging cable the spinner came with.

To translate, treat battery-operated fidget spinners like any other battery-operated device, such a smartphone or tablet.

Buerkle said in the statement:

“If a fidget spinner is marketed and is primarily intended for children 12 years of age and younger, companies must certify that their product meets toy safety and other standards, including limits for phthalates, lead content, and lead in paint, if applicable, and the U.S Toy Standard, ASTM F963-16.”

In its business guidance, the commission said that most fidget spinners are considered general-use products, meaning they aren’t actually intended for children, and therefore don’t have to meet those standards.

Related: Here Is Why You Should Avoid Dollar Store Toys

CPSC made several additional safety tips, including this one for parents and children:

• Regardless of your child’s age, warn them not to put any fidget spinner pieces in their mouth, and not to play with the spinner near their face. [3]

The commission also has additional safety tips for using battery-operated fidget spinners, including:

• Always have working smoke alarms in your home.

• If the fidget spinner you purchased did not come with its own charging cord, make sure to use one with the correct connections for charging.

• Immediately unplug your fidget spinner once it is fully charged.

Sources:

[1] CNN

[2] The Verge

[3] U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

---

---

Sad: Humans Have Created 9 Billion Tons of Plastic in 67 Years

In 1950, plastic was a rarity. Today, plastic is everywhere – in our homes, cars, streets, landfills, and oceans. Scientists recently calculated how much plastic humans have produced since that year, and the conclusion is mind-boggling: 9 billion tons, or 8.3 billion metric tons. [1]

A study published July 19, 2017 in the journal Science Advances reveals that plastics production has risen at a compound annual growth rate of 8.4% in the last 67 years, more than 2.5 times the rise in the global gross domestic product.

A mere 2 million pounds of plastic was available in 1950, compared with more than 400 million tons in 2015. Shockingly, half of the world’s plastics were produced in the last 13 years.

And, the researchers estimated, the amount of plastic in use now is 30% of all plastics ever produced. [2]

As if your mind isn’t boggled enough, think of it this way: according to the U.S. Navy, 9 million tons of plastic is the equivalent to 85,567 aircraft “supercarriers” like the USS Gerald R. Ford, which weighs 107,000 tons (97,000 metric tons). [3]

As of 2015, about 7 billion tons of plastic waste had been disposed of as waste. Of that amount, just 9% of it gets recycled, 12% is incinerated, and 79% winds up in landfills, according to the report.

If humans don’t act quickly to reverse the upward trend, 13.2 billion tons (6.3 billion metric tons) will be disposed of in landfills by 2050, the researchers wrote. Right now, there is already countless plastic particles polluting the oceans. Something needs to be done.

Source: OneWorldOneOcean.com

Roland Geyer, an associate professor of industrial ecology at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and lead author of the new study, said:

“You could say, ‘What a phenomenal success story,’ but I do think it will come with some heavy environmental collateral damage.”

Geyer went on:

“Humankind is making an incredible amount of plastics, even more than we thought it would be, and it keeps increasing. And we’re not very good at dealing with the waste.” [1]

The same team of researchers worked on an earlier study which found in 2015 that between 5 million and 13 million metric tons of plastic work their way into the ocean each year. In this recent study, the researchers noted that plastics are found in every major ocean basin on the planet. [2]

Read: Fish Eat Plastic from Polluted Oceans, Travels up Food Chain & Harms Humans

They write:

“The growth of plastics production in the past 65 years has substantially outpaced any other manufactured material. The same properties that make plastics so versatile in innumerable applications — durability and resistance to degradation — make these materials difficult or impossible for nature to assimilate.

Thus, without a well-designed and tailor-made management strategy for end-of-life plastics, humans are conducting a singular uncontrolled experiment on a global scale, in which billions of metric tons of material will accumulate across all major terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems on the planet.”

According to Geyer, recycling alone doesn’t cut it. He and his colleagues recommend weighing the advantages and disadvantages of the different strategies for managing plastics. Reusing and recycling are 2 of those strategies, but they’ve done little to solve the problem.

Strategies like substituting other materials or using waste-to-energy or other technologies for converting the materials into other substances should be given greater consideration.

Sources:

[1] Newsweek

[2] CNBC

[3] Live Science

One World One Ocean

---

---

About Mike Barrett:
	Mike is the co-founder, editor, and researcher behind Natural Society. Studying the work of top natural health activists, and writing special reports for top 10 alternative health websites, Mike has written hundreds of articles and pages on how to obtain optimum wellness through natural health.

A Sad 1st in America: Heroin Overdoses Outpace Gun Homicides

In a report published December 8, 2016, the CDC said that in 2015, heroin deaths spiked by more than 2,000 cases since 2014, resulting in a sad milestone: There were more heroin-related deaths that year than gun homicides. As recently as 2007, gun homicides outnumbered heroin deaths by more than 5 to 1. [1]

Source: The Washington Post

The number of opioid deaths increased by 30,000 from 2014 to 2015 – another first for the U.S. – up from 5,000 in 2014. But for the first time since at least the 1990’s, heroin deaths outnumbered deaths from traditional opioid painkillers, like hydrocodone and oxycodone.

Additionally, deaths involving potent synthetic opioids, like fentanyl, rose by nearly 75% from 2014 to 2015.

But according to the CDC’s data, deaths may involve more than 1 individual drug category, so the numbers may not be mutually exclusive. For example, many opioid deaths involve multiple types of opioids, or opioids combined with alcohol.

CDC Director Tom Frieden said in a statement:

“The epidemic of deaths involving opioids continues to worsen. Prescription opioid misuse and use of heroin and illicitly manufactured fentanyl are intertwined and deeply troubling problems.”

Michael Botticelli, Director of National Drug Control Policy, also said in a statement:

“The prescription opioid and heroin epidemic continues to devastate communities and families across the country—in large part because too many people still do not get effective substance use disorder treatment. That is why the President has called since February for $1 billion in new funding to expand access to treatment.”

Congress recently passed a spending bill allocating $1 billion to fight the opioid epidemic. That amount includes money for addiction treatment and prevention.

The CDC data was released just a week after the DEA closed its open comment period on kratom, an herb that many credit with helping them safely withdraw from opiates.  [2]

Read: DEA Decides NOT to Ban Kratom … For Now

Opioids in 1996, to the Late 90’s, to Today

Opioid use exploded in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s, but the opioid epidemic may have started in 1996, the year OxyContin was introduced to the U.S. market. In its first year on the market, OxyContin earned its maker, Purdue Pharma, $45 million. By 2000, that number ballooned to $1.1 billion. Ten years later, OxyContin raked in $3.1 billion for the pharmaceutical company, and accounted for about 30% of the painkiller market. [1] [3]

Source: attn:

OxyContin rose to the top of the opiate heap because Purdue was giving doctors kickbacks for prescribing the pain reliever, and heaping massive bonuses on sales execs who convinced doctors to prescribe OxyContin over other opioids.

Read: “Hillbilly Heroin” OxyContin Approved for Use in Children

This is not the only cause of the opioid crisis, but it may have been the jumping-off point. And as the crisis ballooned, state and federal authorities started issuing tighter restrictions on painkillers, driving opioid addicts to the illicit market to get their hands-on heroin.

Grant Smith, deputy director of national affairs at the Drug Policy Alliance, said:

“Criminalization drives people to the margins and dissuades them from getting help. It drives a wedge between people who need help and the services they need. Because of criminalization and stigma, people hide their addictions from others.” [1]

Sources:

[1] The Washington Post

[2] Gizmodo

[3] The Week

attn:

---

---

About Julie Fidler:
	Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.

Investigation Brews over Insecticide-Tainted Eggs Distributed Throughout U.K.

Eggs contaminated with a potentially harmful insecticide were imported from Europe and have been distributed throughout the United Kingdom and other countries, according to England’s Food Standards Agency (FSA). [1]

The number of eggs containing the insecticide fipronil, used in flea and tick products, is thought to be very small, thank goodness, but grocers in Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, and Switzerland have had to pull millions of eggs from store shelves as a precaution.

It is believed that fipronil was used on chickens in Belgium.

The FSA claims the risk to human health is extremely low.

The agency said:

“The number of eggs involved represents about 0.0001% of the eggs imported into the UK each year.

Our risk assessment, based on all the information available, indicates that as part of a normal healthy diet this low level of potential exposure is unlikely to be a risk to public health and there is no need for consumers to be concerned.”

The FSA said that based on the findings of its investigation so far, the affected eggs are no longer available for purchase.

The contamination was kept a secret for weeks and did not trigger the European Union’s (EU) international food safety alert system, allegedly due to a fraud investigation.

Belgium’s agriculture minister said he had ordered the country’s food safety agency to explain why it waited until July 20, 2017 to inform neighboring countries of the problem, when it was aware of the problem back in June.

A criminal investigation has been launched.

Food security expert, professor Chris Elliott, said:

“The report indicated that it (fipronil) should not be used in any food-producing animal of any description, so the Belgian authorities are following a line of investigation to say that there was illegal use… it was actually some serious fraud that was happening somewhere between Belgium and the Netherlands.

All of the information from the food safety authorities right across Europe is that consuming the eggs is not going to endanger anybody’s health.

I’m confident wherever you are in Europe or in the UK, enjoy your eggs.”

Fipronil is considered by the World Health Organization (WHO) to be moderately toxic to humans. The pesticide can damage the kidneys, liver, and lymph glands, and may cause symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, and eye irritation. [2]

The FSA said on its website:

“The government has already taken action to prevent any risk to UK consumers by adding fipronil to its robust surveillance program in UK farms.

We have no evidence that eggs laid in the UK are contaminated or that fipronil has been used inappropriately in the UK. Eighty-five per cent of the eggs we consume in the UK are laid here.”

Several million hens may need to be killed at 150 companies in Belgium, a Dutch farming company has said. About 300,000 have already been put down. [1]

Sources:

[1] Sky News

[2] Independent

---

---

About Julie Fidler:
	Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.

Costa Rica Aims To Ban All Single-Use Plastics By 2021

Costa Rica is hoping to make a dent in the trillions of plastics polluting the oceans and the environment by becoming the first country to ban all single-use plastic products by 2021.

Some U.S. cities, states and other countries have either banned plastic bags or are working on a plan to do so, but that only touches the surface of what Costa Rica wants to do. Forks, lids, coffee stirrers, water bottles, and a multitude of other products would be prohibited under the ban. [1]

In the last half-century, use of plastic has increased 20-fold. There appears to be no place on Earth that is untouched by plastic waste. Even the Mariana trench – the deepest part of the world’s oceans – is littered with plastic. In a report published last year by the World Economic Forum and the Ellen MacArthur foundation, experts estimate there will be more bits of plastic in the sea than fish by 2050.

Source: The Ocean Project

Some 40,000 tons of solid waste is produced in Costa Rica every year, and 20% of it never makes its way to a recycling center or landfill. Instead, the waste ends up in Costa Rican rivers, beaches, and forests.

The country already has plans in place to be carbon-neutral by 2021, partly by ditching fossil fuels. It is also actively trying to restore its forests and protect wildlife.

The effort is being spearheaded by Costa Rica’s Ministries of Health and Environment and Energy, with the support of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and local governments, as well as civil society and various private sector groups. [2]

In a joint statement, Environment and Energy minister Edgar Gutiérrez, Health minister María Esther Anchía, and resident representative for UNDP Costa Rica Alice Shackelford, said:

“Being a country free of single use plastics is our mantra and our mission.

It’s not going to be easy, and the government can’t do it alone. To promote these changes, we need all sectors—public and private—to commit to actions to replace single-use plastic through five strategic actions: municipal incentives, policies and institutional guidelines for suppliers; replacement of single-use plastic products; research and development—and investment in strategic initiatives.

We also need the leadership and participation of all: women, men, boys and girls.”

Source: United Nations

Costa Rican researchers have been busily working toward replacing traditional plastics. For example, 3 university students developed a material made from bananas that is 5 times more resistant than regular plastic bags. The material disintegrates within 18 months. The downside of this material, however, is that it is equipped with a pesticide-releasing system. [3]

Other solutions are clearly needed in the near future.

Sources:

[1] Inhabitat

[2] EcoWatch

[3] The Costa Rica News

The Ocean Project

United Nations

---

---

About Mike Barrett:
	Mike is the co-founder, editor, and researcher behind Natural Society. Studying the work of top natural health activists, and writing special reports for top 10 alternative health websites, Mike has written hundreds of articles and pages on how to obtain optimum wellness through natural health.

Commission to Trump: Declare National Emergency over Opioid Epidemic

President Trump’s opioid commission has urged him to declare a national state of emergency over America’s burgeoning opioid crisis. The recommendation comes from a preliminary draft of the commission’s report. [2]

By declaring an emergency, Trump’s cabinet would be able to take action, and Congress would be forced to fund potential solutions to the epidemic.

Drug overdoses likely killed more people in 2016 than the entire Vietnam War. The previous year, opioid overdoses claimed the lives of more people than car crashes, gun violence, and HIV/AIDs combined, when the AIDS epidemic was at its height in 1995.

The commission says in the report:

“With approximately 142 Americans dying every day, America is enduring a death toll equal to September 11th every three weeks. After September 11th, our President and our nation banded together to use every tool at our disposal to prevent any further American deaths.

Your declaration would empower your cabinet to take bold steps and would force Congress to focus on funding and empowering the Executive Branch even further to deal with this loss of life.”

Read: UN Says It Will Monitor the Fentanyl Market

The lawmakers made several other recommendations, including:

• Grant waiver approvals for all 50 states to get rid of treatment barriers in the Medicaid program that exclude the federal Institutes for Mental Diseases.

• Mandate education initiatives with the assistance of medical and dental schools, and by amending the Controlled Substances Act, to require that prescribers receive better training about the treatment of pain and addiction.

• Provide federal support for state-based prescription drug monitoring programs. This will allow doctors to closely monitor a patient’s prescription drug history, to spot patients who might be doctor shopping for more opioids, or if a patient has a history of abusing drugs.

• Provide more funding for research into non-opioid painkillers.

• Boost efforts to block illegal fentanyl shipments.

The commission warns in the report that “If this scourge has not found you or your family yet, without bold action by everyone, it soon will.” [2]

They go on:

“You, Mr. president, are the only person who can bring this type of intensity to the emergency and we believe you have the will to do so and to do so immediately. Our citizens are dying. We must act boldly to stop it.”

The Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis is chaired by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R), Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker (R), North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper (D), former Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D), and Dr. Bertha Madras.

Sources:

[1] Vox

[2] USA Today

---

---

About Julie Fidler:
	Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.

NFL Extends Offer to Work With Union to Study Medical Marijuana

In a letter to the NFL Players Association (NFLPA), the NFL offered to team up to study the potential of marijuana as a pain management tool for players. Marijuana use, for any purpose, is currently prohibited by the league. [1]

The NFLPA is in the midst of conducting its own marijuana study, and reportedly has yet to respond to the NFL’s offer.

Joe Lockhart, the NFL’s executive vice president of communications, said:

“We look forward to working with the Players Association on all issues involving the health and safety of our players.”

Someone with knowledge of the matter said the NFL wrote to the NFLPA to ask if, considering the union’s public comments in 2017, it would be interested in cooperating on research. Potential topics for study in the letter include pain management for both chronic and acute pain.

In addition to launching its own study, the NFLPA said it is interested in further loosening the sport’s rules concerning recreational pot use by athletes.

In January 2017, DeMaurice Smith, the NFLPA’s executive director, told The Washington Post it would propose to the league a “less punitive” approach to recreational use by players. At the moment, players are tested for marijuana, and those caught using it face potential discipline, including fines. [1]

Smith said at the time:

“I do think that issues of addressing it more in a treatment and less punitive measure is appropriate. I think it’s important to look at whether there are addiction issues. And I think it’s important to not simply assume recreation is the reason it’s being used.”

Individually, the union formed a pain management committee to research marijuana as a pain management tool for players and other potential uses. Technically speaking, the committee is actually a subcommittee of the NFLPA’s Mackey-White traumatic brain injury committee.

Smith stated earlier in January:

“How do you make sure that you address any potential addiction issue? Because I’ve read the literature on both side.

How do you deal with the fact that some people are using it purely recreationally and pivoting it to … people who are using it medicinally either as a pain eradicator or a stress-coping mechanism? So what we’ve decided to do is, to the best we can, look at it as related but nonetheless separate issues. Do I expect in the near future we are going to be presenting something to our board on the first issue? Yes.”

A former NFL player is currently suing U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the Department of Justice, and the DEA. Marvin Washington, a defensive lineman known mostly for his time with the New York Jets, and 4 other plaintiffs want cannabis to be legalized at the federal level. [2]

Washington is the co-founder of a company that sells hemp-based sports-performance products that contain no THC, the psychoactive component of marijuana which produces a high.

The retired athlete alleges in the lawsuit that the federal government’s classification of marijuana as a Schedule I drug is keeping him from receiving federal grants to open a business “that would allow pro football players to use medical marijuana for pain management in lieu of more addictive opioids.”

Read: In States That Legalize Medical Marijuana, Opioid Use Decreases

Washington said in June of 2017 that NFL players “are fed opiates and pharmaceuticals throughout the week, from training camp until the end of season. That can be June to January. It’s not normal.”

“I think the Players Association should demand that [players] have an alternative to opiates. This is scientific-based. This is not hocus pocus. That’s where I want to see this in the very near future, players that have an alternative to opiates.”

Washington’s co-plaintiffs include an 11-year-old girl who requires medical marijuana to treat her epilepsy, and a disabled military veteran who uses cannabis to treat his post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Sources:

[1] The Washington Post

[2] The Washington Post

---

---

About Julie Fidler:
	Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.

FDA Urged to Investigate Hazards of Chemical Phthalates in Food Packaging

Senator Chuck Schumer from New York issued a letter to FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb on July 30, 2017, calling on the health regulator to launch a study into the consequences of using phthalates in food packaging. [1]

Earlier in July, a study revealed that boxed macaroni and cheese contain phthalates, including Kraft Mac & Cheese. Phthalates are a group of endocrine-disrupting additives in plastics, used to make them soft and flexible.

Phthalates also lurk in fast food packaging, such as burger wrappers, soda cups, and fry cartons. In addition, they are found in beauty and cosmetic products, as well as in other consumer and industrial products.

Source: Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health

Studies have linked phthalates to:

• Various cancers


• Human reproduction and developmental problems


• Damage to the male reproductive system


• Birth defects


• Behavioral problems in children


• Miscarriages


• Premature birth


• Respiratory issues in children with bronchial obstruction, such as asthma. [2]

Schumer noted in his letter to Gottlieb that federal regulators have already banned 6 types of phthalates often found in “children’s toys and other child care products, like those to facilitate sleeping, feeding, sucking or teething.” [1]

He went on:

“To think that we have all this data on phthalate chemicals from doctors, scientists, health experts and other industries just sitting around, frozen like a beef patty and begging for the FDA to take it to the next appropriate level of scrutiny is worrisome for the consumer.

The studies are clear: the link between these chemicals does have an impact on the body, and not a very good one. That is why I am asking the FDA to launch a formal investigation into the fast food products that wrap our burgers or subs, hold our drinks and contain our leftovers.”

In the letter, Schumer included citations from studies published by the CDC and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), as well as others showing that phthalates may cause thyroid and insulin problems in kids. Past research has also indicated that Americans who eat a lot of fast food have higher levels of phthalates in their bodies than those who rarely hit fast-food joints.

Source: Natural Resources Defense Council

Schumer wrote in the letter to Gottlieb:

“Consumers are not giving these everyday packaging products a second thought. They assume they are safe — and they should be, especially when their reach extends to millions upon millions of Americans.

The agency must now take a closer look at these products for the sake of consumers and their everyday health.” [3]

Sources:

[1] Newsday

[2] Environmental Working Group

[3] New York Daily News

Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health

Natural Resources Defense Council

---

---

In Case You Missed It: FDA is Testing Food for Glyphosate Amid Public Concern

The FDA has resumed testing food for glyphosate residues, as questions about the safety of the RoundUp chemical continue to grow.

In 2016, the FDA launched what it refers to as a “special assignment” to analyze certain foods for glyphosate residues. The move was sparked by the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s criticism of the agency for failing to include glyphosate in annual testing programs which analyzes foods ‘less-used’ chemicals in food.

The testing only lasted a few months, however, due to haggling among agency officials over how to establish a standard testing methodology across the FDA’s multiple U.S. laboratories.

Rumors swirled that the halt on testing was politically motivated – the FDA announced that it would cease testing food for glyphosate after an FDA chemist detected glyphosate in U.S. honey and oat products, including baby food.

Glyphosate is one of the world’s most widely-used herbicides, so it’s not difficult to draw parallels between the discovery of the herbicide in honey and oats, and the FDA’s decision to shelve testing for the product. Why test for less-used herbicides but skip RoundUp, when it is obviously so prevalent?

In April 2017, the USDA was set to start testing some food samples for the herbicide, documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act revealed, but the agency ultimately decided against it.

The FDA quietly resumed it’s testing for glyphosate in early June 2017, as well as for 2,4-D, and other “acid herbicides.” Chemical companies have started to combine 2,4-D and the herbicide dicamba with glyphosate in new weed-killing products. Use of these multi-chemical herbicides is expected to grow, making testing more important than ever.

Source: GMO Awareness

In addition to being one of the most widely-used herbicides in the world, glyphosate is the most controversial. In 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as probably carcinogenic to humans.

But U.S. and other world regulatory agencies have said that conclusion lacks the scientific evidence to back it up. This led to biotech giant Monsanto (the maker of glyphosate-containing Roundup) requesting that the link between glyphosate and cancer be retracted.

Meanwhile, Monsanto is facing hundreds of lawsuits filed on behalf of people who allege glyphosate caused their cancers. The biotech giant is also embroiled in a legal battle over allegations the company colluded with a former high-ranking EPA official to downplay – and, in some cases, completely cover up – glyphosate’s health risks.

Source:

The Huffington Post

---

---

About Julie Fidler:
	Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.

Senate Appropriations Committee OKs Medical Marijuana for Vets

In July 2017, the Senate Appropriations Committee voted 24-7 to approve an amendment that would allow vets legal access to medical marijuana as part of the 2018 Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. The bill, if met with final approval, would allow physicians at VA hospitals in legal marijuana states to recommend and write medical cannabis prescriptions for veterans. [1]

The amendment is intended “to prohibit the use of funds appropriated or other-wise made available under this Act to interfere with the ability of veterans to participate in medical marijuana programs approved by States or deny services to such veterans.”

VA doctors are currently prohibited from completing the paperwork necessary for their patients to access medical marijuana. The rule has been expired for more than a year, and the VA has yet to author a replacement.

Fortunately, the amendment is now attached to the appropriations bill that pays for VA operations. Hopefully this time it will be a success; in 2016, a similar amendment was pushed through by both the House and Senate, only to be stripped from the appropriations bill by a conference committee.

Sen. Steve Daines, a Republican from Montana who sponsored the measure, said the amendment “simply allows the VA patients in states with medical marijuana programs to discuss that option with their VA doctor or physician.” [2]

The American Legion and AMVETS, 2 of the largest and most influential veterans’ groups in the country, have urged the federal government to allow vets access to medical cannabis. The American Legion took the step of sending a letter to President Trump asking for his help in changing the policy.

The letter reads:

“The American Legion respectfully requests a meeting with President Trump as soon as possible and looks forward to partnering with this administration in the fight against narcotics addiction and reducing the veteran suicide rate from the tragic loss of 20 warriors per day, to zero.”

Read: VA Head Comes Out in Support of Marijuana for Vets with PTSD

Trump could support the amendment, or he could veto it or demand that the language once again be yanked from the bill. [3]

Paul Armentano, deputy director of the pro-marijuana organization NORML, said:

“Given the rising level of both public and political support in favor of medical cannabis access, especially for veterans – coupled with the increasing lobbying efforts from veterans’ groups like the American Legion and AMVETS – I would not only anticipate members of the House and Senate to once again approve this reform legislation, but also to do so in greater numbers than last year.

The question that remains, however, is whether high ranking Republicans or the Trump administration will respect this vote, or will they turn their back on the needs of veterans and the will of overwhelming majority of voters.”

Sources:

[1] Merry Jane

[2] The Fresh Toast

[3] LA Weekly

---

---

About Julie Fidler:
	Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.